Did Poland, France and Russia 'steal' the land from Germany?

[Kolokotrones]

I have no sympathy for the Germans at all because they started the war, you reap what you sow. I wonder what Germany would have done to the eastern European nations and Russia had they won the war? Hmm....I wonder.
You could argue that Germany got off lightly after WW2.

Germany should be thankful the Russians weren't the Romans and were relatively merciful.

That's more than obvious. You're biased, all I was saying was that it is wrong stealing land from Germany. Germany may have done similiar things to the Eastern Europeans, but that is wrong as well. Two wrongs don't make a right, doing something to your enemy just because he planned to do it to you is no kind of moral. I feel sorry for you, because of your brutish, primitive "kill or be killed" moral code.

[Darklife]

Listen all this talk about "Oh they killed 20 million of us so we deserve it as payback" or "Oh it was ours for 800 years so we should get it back" is nonsense! That is irrelavent.

Might is right.
That is all that matters.

Germany started the wars, were the aggressors and the Allies and Russia brutally pimpslapped the krauts back into the ground, they were the victors therefore they get to do what they damn well please and Germany and all the Germans have to take it whether they like it or not.

Whether you think it was justified or not doesn't matter, all that matters is that Russia won and they get to do what they want to do with the land.

EXACTLY!

[Phunkracy]

Really, on an unseen scale? During the Thirty Years War Germany's population was cut in half due to marauding rapacious Swedes, French, Spaniards, Austrians and Dutch, as well as Germans themselves. If more people died in WWII that was because there were more people to die, not because the people of the 17th Century were any less rapacious.

Maybe it was boosting to your German pride to say 'Swedes, Spaniards and Austrians pillaged our country', but those armies consisted nearly entirely of Germans. Also, most of the deaths was caused by famine and diseases.

I did not call the Poles barbaric, I much admire Poland, but riding to victory on Russia's back, and seizing lands that are not yours is hardly a noble deed. I should have said "ignoble" instead of barbaric, I did not mean to imply that Poles are in any way inferior.

Riding on Russia's back to victory?! What? Poland was invaded by Russia as much as Germany... Poles were infact the biggest victims of this war... Also, what do Poles had to do with taking German land?! It was Stalin's will to strip Germany, and his order was just executed by Soviets.

Learn history!

Also that was the Order of Teutonic Knights, not the Kingdom of Prussia.

Teutonic Order---> Duchy of Prussia---> Brandenburg-Prussia---> Kingdom of Prussia.

Capechi?!

So I guess the beginnings of the United States were in California?

Why do you so desperately use wrong analogy?!

I meant that Prussia created Germany,

UNIFIED, due to it's military might.

the 13 Colonies created the United States, and gave it its culture.

Surprise: German culture was EXPORTED to Prussia, Silesia and Pomerania, not otherwise. Non-prussian states already had german culture.

Prussia did have a culture of militarism, but there was also a culture of science and philosophy, a culture of music. Just because Prussia had a big army and used it does not merit them the title of pure simple militarists whose only thought was conquest. That's propaganda non-sense.

They weren't pure militarist. But they indeed were most militaristic state in Europe.

Prussia's greatest King liked nothing better than to play the flute and write music, hardly a militarist, though he fought in wars, in that age, it was regarded as a duty of the Monarch to expand and consolidate borders. And he believed (sincerely? With Fritz, the supreme cynic, one never knows) that the Emperor wronged him by refusing to yield Silesia, which he had a shaky, but legitimate claim on. Don't try and transcend time and impose our values on people of 300 years ago.

He also had one of the biggest armies in whole Europe, his soldier per civilians ratio was highest in Europe, and he led an expansive, militaristic state.

Okay then, by your logic, the Germans should just give up all their territory east of the Elbe then, since that was inhabited by slavs to originally. Or better yet, the Slavs should all pack up and go back to the foothills of the Urals, where they came from originally, and the Magyars should go back to the Steppes of Asia, along with the Turks, and all the Americans should just go back to Europe where they belong.

I was just pointing out that comparison of 13 colonies to Prussia is pure nonsense.

Prussia, Silesia and Pomerania were German to the bone, they had German minorities,

So Germans were majority or minority there? And no, they weren't German to the bone. If I would ever use such term on a German teoritorries, I would call such the teoritorries west of Oder.

German built cities,

Naaaah. Look at the map of Eastern Germany. Then look at the city names. Sound Slavic? Well, that's because they were built by Slavs. Same applies to Silesia and Pomerania. To much bigger extent.

people spoke German daily

depends where.

only in the Grand Duchy of Posen, were there significant numbers of Polish people,

BS detector detects a threat!
BS detected!
Report:
That 'Grand Duchy of Posen' was purely Polish, and actually before partition it was called 'Wielkopolska' which can be translated as 'Greater Poland'.

Learn history!

Poland accepted this agreement, to take German land in compensation for losing land to the Russians.

Whatdid you expect from Soviet-set Puppet-goverment (which wasn't even legal government of Poland btw)?! To disagree with Stalin?

Learn history!

It must be pointed out that the majority of this territory had been seized by Pilsudski from Russia in the 1920's, and it was already mostly inhabited by non-Poles.

All this teoritorry was seized by Russia from Poland in early 1800s. Learn history!

And it's polish population was significant enough to justify it's incorporation. But what it has to do with Prussia?

Are you serious? Buy back something that is theirs? Germans are deprived of their families plots of land, and have to endure this slap in the face to, your haughty "Just buy it back if you want it?"

Yes, they have to. They have to deal with it, just like Poles had.

How would you like it if I stole your computer and you complained, and I just said "Buy it back, simple and fair?"

I'd like, but remember that first you must rape my women and kill my family, and steal my computer.

It's not even that they can't get the land back that is really a problem, the problem is they were carted off land their families had lived on for generations and they received absolutely zero compensation,

AFAIK German Government gave them compensation.

the Polish and Russian Governments did not buy up the land and evict them, they said "beat it" and didn't give them a penny. And that's fair to you?

It's not fair, but it's not fair for Poles. Sorry, but that is pathetic if you compare it with all that Poles suffered from both Germans and Russians.

How about the German cultural monuments, like Kant's house in Konigsberg, or the whole of Konigsberg itself, which was demolished and rebuilt by the Russians?
What about Hindenburgs memorial at Tannenberg, which was desecrated, torn down. Hindenburgs body would surely have disappeared had not the Germans rescued it before hand.

I apologise for Russians. They are too hot-headed sometimes, especially when it comes to revenge

And worst barbarity in History?

Gas chambers.

that's on a scale Hitler only dreamed of

If history gave him more time, he would surely exterminate few times more people.

Not even France was punished with such a huge loss of land after the tyrannical Napoleon Bonaparte was finally done away with.

Hey, did Napoleon exterminate other nations? No, he didn't!

[Antigenes]

Teutonic Order---> Duchy of Prussia---> Brandenburg-Prussia---> Kingdom of Prussia.

This progression is not only a vast oversimplification, but has nothing whatsoever to do with mindset, culture, or anything of the sort. One might as well call modern Hungarians nothing more than raping, pillaging Magyars.

That 'Grand Duchy of Posen' was purely Polish, and actually before partition it was called 'Wielkopolska' which can be translated as 'Greater Poland'.

Polish population was 64% in 1910, which, while a majority, was not purely Polish.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Deported populations were actually lucky, you know. Most of them landed in a place where they could avoid the Eastern Bloc.

There are many claims to territory, tradition being one of them. Many people recognize the claim of Ireland to the six counties of Ulster, and of Spain to Gibraltar, and of Greece to Istanbul and Cyprus and Smyrna, and Morocco to Melilla and Ceuta. Or what of Austria's claim to the South Tyrol, where German speakers are in the majority? What is a legitimate claim then Volataire? Since you seem to be the supreme arbiter of what does, and does not, constitute a legitimate claim, since you think cultural and historical claims are trumped by clamorings for vengeance.

Using a fallacious "claim from tradition" will not help your case. At the dawn of the millenium everything east of the Elbe was inhabited by Slavs who were gradually repelled or absorbed by German populations. A claim to tradition would actually support the Oder-Neisse line, since it would take back land that was stolen (if you prefer the term) by the Drang Nach Osten.

But since the claim from tradition is a fallacy, all I can say is that the Global Powers were actually merciful on the Germans. They could have wiped it out entirely or put the Morgenthau plan into action, thus turning Germany into a hole with less per capita income than Uzbekistan. Terriotiral concessions, and their ethnical consequences, were a soft thing compared to what the Nazis have ever done to Europe. Had Gengis Khan pillaged the entire Eurasia like he did he would never ever reach comparable damage to that of Nazi Germany; Cortez himself is but a pussy in comparison.

No wonder then that after Nazi Germany the war guilt was harsh and enduring. Why did a people presumed so literate and civilized bow to such murderous stratagems is beyond understanding; all their arrogance gave them the worst.

[Phunkracy]

This progression is not only a vast oversimplification, but has nothing whatsoever to do with mindset, culture, or anything of the sort. One might as well call modern Hungarians nothing more than raping, pillaging Magyars.

Polish mindset, culture etc. from 10th century have little to do with those of 18th century. Your point is incorrect.

Polish population was 64% in 1910, which, while a majority, was not purely Polish.

Yes, but only due to German behaviour there, such as brutal germanification, german colonisation, Kulturkampf and others. In 1800s percentage was much, much higher. Also, Germans left Poland after it gained independence.

[Antigenes]

Polish mindset, culture etc. from 10th century have little to do with those of 18th century. Your point is incorrect.

What point? I think what you said is valid and that you haven't disproved anything of what I've said.

Yes, but only due to German behaviour there, such as brutal germanification, german colonisation, Kulturkampf and others. In 1800s percentage was much, much higher.

Oh, okay, so you were wrong. Just checking.

[Phunkracy]

What point? I think what you said is valid and that you haven't disproved anything of what I've said.

Your statement was that TO had little/nothing to do with Prussia, while it's legal descendant of TO. And the fact that mindset and culture doesn't mean anything, Captain Obvious.

Oh, okay, so you were wrong. Just checking.

No I wasn't.

[Antigenes]

Your statement was that TO had little/nothing to do with Prussia, while it's legal descendant of TO. And the fact that mindset and culture doesn't mean anything, Captain Obvious.

I did not say that the Teutonic Order had little or nothing to do with Prussia. In English, we refer to something called a straw man; perhaps you could refrain from misrepresenting my statements in such a fashion, hmm? As to 'legal descendant', well, that doesn't make any sense since the Teutonic Order still exists today.

No I wasn't.

You said that the population of the Grand Duchy was purely Polish. I indicated it wasn't, making no reference to why. You said 'yes', and added qualifications for which I really don't give a rat's tuchas. But, since you care so much, I'll add that in 1815 the Germans made up a quarter of the population; again, not purely Polish.

[Applesmack]

Hey I'm Polish, bonus points for you.

Ah I see! I took you for one of those staunch defenders of communism that so often pop up on forums, however you're just a relativist. Although I partly share your viewpoint I think that some facts are simply indusputable.

While your statement is correct, the crimes committed by the Soviets were just that, crimes. No matter what the reason and historical justification they are still crimes. You may or may not condemn them, but they remain as such.

Yes, I agree. I never doubted them. I'm just putting them in a much more realistic sence than a simple: "HE RAPED THEM, THE BASTARD!"

Ilya Ehrenburg?

An example, yes.

By no means. It simply disproves the whole Communist ethos of creating a superior human being.

That is defiantely not a communist ethos. The Communist ethos was to make a completely equal world, but unfortunately it didn't work out. As many say, communism is the greatest thing in the world on paper yet a terror in reality.

You questioned whether the majority of Red Army soldiers partook in looting activities.

Of course, I would like proof that they did. The Red Army is MASSIVE and I find that hard to believe.

Yes, and that's makes them feel ok. No. It's just the reason hundreds of thousands of German women kept their mouth shut about what had happened to them (that and wartraumatized husbands coming home).

Perhaps if not okay, understanding. There are likely some Fascist fanatics who think what happened to them is the worst thing in the world and there was no reason for it, while they support genocide of Jews and watch while their regime invades country after country for the lebensraum.

And anyone disagreeing had been shipped off into the first prototype concentration camps so alot of others would keep their head low and mouth shut.

Very few disagreed with them and the few that were shipped off just strengthens my point: The ones left are pure Nazis.

Locking up millions of German citizens in concentration camps and outright executing tens of thousands for political reasons was mainly meant to accomplish just that.

The tiny minority and most of these only began rebelling after Germany was loosing the war. They did not care about the atrocities, they care about Germany being wiped out. They didn't want to suffer like everyone else suffered.

Your paragraph doesn't make much sense. Maybe you mistyped something.

Paragraph makes perfect sence.

There are plenty of other studies indicating that Hitler gained his greatest support after France. This doesn't equal with common civilians being happy that there is another war, but being happy that the other war was over quickly and in favour of germany. Overall the populace was not that ecstatic about the attack against the Soviet Union but intoxicated by the French defeat they believed it will be over as quickly.

So essentially, Germany supported Hitler massively before the invasion of the Soviet Union and thought the USSR would be crushed whiole not caring for any war crimes. Only during his campaign, when they began to lose, did they start to care.

Otherwise, the Nazi regime went to great length that all those "undesirables" they had marked up to be killed anywhere _but_ in germany. The reason to ship off people 1000 miles only to kill them and spin up stories and rumours that they get resettled is so none left behind is the wiser.

Most of them being at the end of the war. Cowards who didn't want to suffer like they made other people suffer.

There is this very difficult range between knowing, suspecting and feeling something wrong is going on. I believe this whole canoply of knowledge a common German could accumulate outside the orchestrated machinery of the military or NSDAP party organiuations was very limited and easily extinguished by the knowledge to get shot for saying something wrong.

They did not WANT to say something is wrong for they SUPPORTED Hitler.

Which was more a silence majority and is anything but enthusiastic.

Very small minority initially. Perhaps in the later years, like 1944, it was a majority but it is too late then.

Actually Germany was nowhere near that levels minus political instability. Most of Hitler's economic wonders came about from political measures planned and preapared by his precedessors and the capabilities of the German economy despite crisis after crisis. The main difference being they did care how much debt they could accumulate.

Are you kidding me? The German money was worth more used as firewood before Hitler.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Myth
However, by around 1936 Albert Speer records that the Hitler Myth was under threat, with officials having to organise cheering crowds[4], presenting a stark contrasts with Hitler's spontaneous crowds of old. It is also true, on the other hand, that Speer may not be considered a reliable or impartial source for such information. Other observers, pro and anti-Nazi, dispute his claim.[citation needed] Certainly 1938 saw a rise in Hitler's popularity, which dipped sharply with the outbreak of the Second World War. Only the victories in the West during 1940 revived it, and even then the campaign against the Soviet Union led to a dramatic decline in Hitler's popularity.

Overall, while Hitler was being stylized as demigod the wars were not considered helping him in his popularity other than forcing the populace to go with it because now a war was on threatening the fatherland and latter home and family and if you were not with the Nazis: you were a communist, a title which held little life expectancy under the Nazi regime.

Of course they were. As long as he kept winning wars, they didn't care how many Jews or Russians he murdered. They believed they were the master race and anything that came out of his mouth. After they began loosing, such as the disasters inside the USSR, they began to feel threatened and scared for their attrocities are about to come crashing at their heads.

Here is a good book to show that the Germans were not infact tricked or manipulated to do their crimes such as the Holocaust. They believed in it and follows fanatically:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hitlers-Will...5951822&sr=1-1

Daniel Goldhagen re-visits a question which history has treated as settled, and his research leads him to the inescapble conclusion that none of the answers holds true. That question is: How could the Holocaust happen? His response is an exploration of German society and its ingrained anti-semitism that demands a fundamental revision of our thinking about the years 1933-1945. The author marshals fresh, primary evidence - including extensive testimony from the actual perpetrators - to show that the killers were ordinary Germans who were not compelled to act as they did (they knew they could refuse without retribution) yet they killed willingly and zealously.

See, here we have what you don't understand.
I never claimed the Soviet soldiers shouldn't be judged based on the circumstances, I said the crimes against German civilians shouldn't be downplayed because Germans and in the name of germany much worse crimes were commited. Rape is rape is rape. Murder is murder is murder...
regardless who does it when where or why.

And the Germans are equally responsible for these crimes for they did everything possible to make the Russians commit them.

It doesn't excuse the German SOBs who actively participated in those crimes to say so.

Neither does it excuse the civillian population who supported them in the fight for Western civilization against the "sub-humans"

The basic concept of the German armed forces was the conscript army: You had no right to refuse when the consciption letters came in. Esspecially not under the Nazis.

Congratulations soldier! Your off to shoot, rape and slaughter Russians by the hundreds of thousands. However, remember to wine when anything bad happens to you.

Wether individuals chose to join the army on their own accord is not part of the question. The question is wether they'd have had a choice to refuse to join the army given the circumstances. They had only a right to choose to join the army earlier than they had to.

I'm sure they wouldn't refuse. After all, they fanatically believe that they are defending their "fatherland' and all of Western civilization against the "Bolshevick horde". Here is a good book on the state of mind and views of the German Army:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hitlers-Army...5951992&sr=1-1

With liberal quotes from letters, diaries and military reports, Bartov successfully challenges the notion that the German army during WW II was apolitical and reveals how thoroughly permeated it was by Nazi ideology. Focusing on ordinary German soldiers on the Eastern front, he shows how government propaganda and indoctrination motivated the troops not only to fight well but to commit unprecedented crimes against humanity. This institutionalized brainwashing revolved around two interrelated elements: the radical demonization of the Soviet enemy and the deification of the fuhrer. Consequently, most of the troops believed the war in the Eastern theater was a struggle to dam the Jewish/Bolshevik/Asiatic flood that threatened Western civilization. This scholarly paper by a junior fellow with the Society of Fellows, Harvard University, demonstrates how Germany's soldiers were transformed into brutal instruments of a barbarous policy.

latter filled up with draftees when the casualties did rose.

Link? Likely too late in the war to matter if it is true.

It's no excuse to go down to the same level as someone else. It just might be understandable human reaction, albeit a primitive one.

How about you have someone burn down youre house, shoot your kids or perhaps rape our wife right in your face before commenting that it is a "primitive" reaction. hatred and desire for vegence is a normal reaction especially if it is inflamed by propoganda and the destruction the Germans have left in their wake to othes families, not only yours.

Down the same level? What the Russians did to the Germans is MUCH LESS than what the Germans did tot he Russians. It's like someone murdered your wife and your whole family, tortured you, burned down your house and then after you threw a rock through his window you got arrested.

How much any indiviual German soldier knew depended heavily on his position in the armed forces, his involvement or wittnessing of actual crimes and wether he had the time to think about more than saving his and his comrade's hide.

Shooting civillians, burning down cities, stealing food from the starving and commiting a systamatic genocide against Russian POWs is "saving his comrade's hide"?

That's the beauty of it. Once the bullets are flying people stop to ask question.

Sounds like you are trying to excuse Nazi crimes now...

You are again confusing the punishment with the crime. The judgement of the Red army should give them some leeway in that the common soldier was either personally affected or heavily indoctrinated by his command or the general propaganda. That doesn't change that the Red army commited hundreds of thousands of rapes when the war was over.

The crime and punishment are very related and so is the circumstance of the crime. The REd Army's atrocities and rapes are not a surprise to anyone, not even to the Germans. The Fascists new exactly what was coming to them, that is why they were fleeing to the hills in desperation to get to the Western Allies.

You are making the same thing the Nazis did: Wash away any individualism and blame people generally based on where they came from, not what they actually did, saw, or not did. That's how those things like racism and fascism and radicalism inherently works: Split the world between good people and bad people and tell your audience they are the good people.

I'm completely confused here....:hmmm:

The more prudent approach is to look at each independantly and come to conclusions based on what happened. And for me millions over millions of people getting murdered for shallow reasons can't be right. But also the rape of several million women including Russian POWs can't be right.

Murder of millions of people? You are talking about the Nazis right? The Germans in the Soviet camps were more than fine, infact they were much better off than they deserve to be. There were 300, 000 German deaths in Soviet POw camps with a rate of 14.9%. By contrast, some 3.3 million Soviet POWs died in German captivity, a loss rate of 65%.

Source: Overy, Richard (2004). The Dictators. W. W. Norton & Company. p. 523

The rap numbers are estimated between several tens of thousands to 2 million. I think that about 1 million is the most resalistic number.

[OTZ]

Prove it.

Prove what? That you consistently show how little you know about a subject (in this case, rape)? I think you're doing a fine job showing everyone how ignorant you are.

Or do you want me to "prove" the stages of post-rape trauma syndrome? If that's so, it only furthers your lack of understanding of the issue. If you want information on how rape victims react to the the brutalisation of being raped, their are a myriad of journals available for your casual perusal, should you choose to educate yourself.

Take your pick from any of the following:

Psychology and psychotherapy

Psychology, crime & law

Psychology & health

Psychology of women quarterly


...just a few of the journals I had a look through when helping someone find info on the issue of rape. There are plenty of articles on the subject, if you want specifics, let me know - more than happy to post issue and volume numbers (even though I know you will never use them).

Oh of course, they are all selish and don't care abou the suffering they have brought to others.

Rape victims "don't care about the suffering they have brough to others"? WTF? I don't understand? Unless you mean, "the Nazis don't care..." You are not being very clear.

There are serious excuses for the rape and the reasons it was done.

There are no excuses for rape. It is a crime. Rape is not accepted as an excusable act in modern Western society.

The blame also falls on the Germans themselves.

Who exactly is to blame? You are playing a weird game with words here, and you are being far from clear. I assume, yet again, you are referring to the Nazis, and not specifically the women and children who were raped and murdered. I sincerely hope you don't mean the women and children...

Supporting the Nazi regime means supporting the Holocaust and the horrific crimes commited in the East

No, it didn't. You need to read a little more about life inside the Reich before you can pass such a sweeping (and completely false) generalisation.

There is no justification, but there are serious reasons that perhaps even pevent omeone from being punished in anything more than councilling. Of course, the Red Army punishments were much worse than concilling.

Yes, punishment could have been severe, if the criminals were actually prosecuted for their barbaric acts - and this, as we all know - did not always happen. If you can prove that, as you inferred, that a majority of "rapists" were "Severely" punished, I'll drop this part of the debate. To do that, you will need to dig into your (imaginary) sources and come up with qualitative statistics for us.

Actually, supporting such brutal war means you are essentially asking for it.

Ahh, yes, of course. All Germans who supported their A) government, B) soliders, or C) family members or friends who were any wya associated with the war effort, have no one to blame when it comes down to the raping and muredering of women and children - except themselves. LUDICROUS. This is akin to saying the actions of your government, no matter what they do, when they do it, and whether they carry out those tasks in secret, will be the direct responsibilty of the people who put them in power...lol.

I don't really "justify" it. I'm probably somewhere in between justifying and excusing.

Yikes, that's too bad. I hope your dates feel the same way...'cause ya know, a chick in a mini-skirt is just asking for it.

Breach of discipline. I seriously doubt the commanders punished their soldiers because they felt more sympathy towards the population than they felt anger at the breach of discpline of their men and the bismerching of the Red Army's name. Stalin's attitude makes that pretty clear actually. When he was approached about the rapes, he didn't seem to care much, but he declared that he doesn't want the Red Army's name to be thrown out the window.

He didn't care that they were being raped - just as long as it was kept secret. How do you interpret this? It's nothing but STATE-sponsored brutality. Stalin effectively gave the green-light to his forces to act out any sick, perverse, crime-ridden fantasy they wanted to, upon the peoples of Western and Eastern Europe.

Perhaps 1/10 of it. The rape of Russian and Polish women is because of sexual repression, but notice how the rape of them is virtually insignificant in comparison to the rape of Germany.

1/10!!!!! How do you come up with this stuff? Do you know anything about the issue of sex in 20th Century Russia? Anything at all? Do you at least know anything about the issue of sex in the Red Army? Come on? Anything? Doubtful. I challenge you to show us that sexual repression was "1/10" the reason behind the mass rapings that took place in 44, 45, 46, 47, 48.

It's quite obivous because it literally links to the intervuew and is a professional newspaper in Poland.

Oh - so you read the article did you? Can you please post it here, translated in English, so we can have a gander at it?

Stop doubting every source provided to you, especially when it is compeltely obvious it is not lies.

It's completely obvious is it? Given what Beevor has publicly stated in English papers, AND IN THE BOOK ITSELF? HAve you read the Fall of Berlin? I know you haven't, so there's no need to answer.

How about you start accepting a source for once.

Your source is a referrence from Wikipedia! It's not even the newspaper article itself! Do you see the logic here? You aren't even using the primary source! You are cherry picking one sentence from Wikipedia, as justification for your opinion.

Not even the author of the biggest book bashing Russian rapes is critical of seeing the Germans as victims.

...and that just goes to show how much you've actually read about the issue. You do know that there have been quite a few scholarly articles, and other publications that describe in detail, the "raping" of Western/Eastern Europe, right? BEevor received attention because of his success with Stalingrad - he was an obvious target for ridicule because of his popularity - NOT because he's the "biggest basher."

I'm reffering to the laws we have today and how the courts work. You are looking at he rapes in a modern standard are you not?

...and I'm referring to the Red Army code of military justice in the 1940s - shouldn't that be what we are looking at (you know, given that the discussion has been about Red Army soldiers raping civilians, and their "alleged" punishment for committing such acts)?

Proof that it was majority.

Read any book on the conduct of the Red Army in 44 and 45, in Poland and Germany...

I was reffering to the German government. That is obvious from my reply to you...

It's not obvious to me. You are the author of your posts, and it may be obvious to you - but I assure you, not everyone gets your point.

Perhaps the children did not, but how many children were raped?

You tell me - afterall, you claimed to know the answers to "most" of the questions I had previoulsy posed. I would assume you would at least know how many victims were children.

Change child to "women" and I certainly will say that the Nazi regime theys supported is just as responsible as the Soviet army.

The only person EVER reponsible for rape - is the person committing the act. This seems to be a very difficult, if not outright impossible, thing for you to understand. Victims of rape are never to blame - or else it isn't rape.

The Russians and Germans are probably equally responsible for the rapes and what the Russians did to the Germans is MUCH LESS than what the Germans did tot he Russians.

Totally irrelevant. Completely and utterly irrelevant. The Germans who did what they did in Russia are reponsible for their actions, and should have been the ones answering for their crimes. The Russians who did waht they did to Germany, Poland, et al. are repsonisbile for their actions. A tit for tat doesn't fly when it comes to thigs such as the rape and murder of civilians. Both sides committed unspeakable horrors - but the actions of one are not, and should never be seen as, the excuse for the other.

It's like someone murdered your wife and your whole family, tortured you, burned down your house and then after you threw a rock through his window you got arrested.

Brilliant analogy. It's nothing like that at all. Not even close. You need to think this one through a bit more...

I'm sure they wouldn't refuse. After all, they fanatically believe that they are defending their "fatherland' and all of Western civilization against the "Bolshevick horde". Here is a good book on the state of mind and views of the German Army:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hitlers-Army-Soldiers-Nazis Third/dp/0195079035/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235951992&sr=1-1

Have you read this book yourself, or are you going to take an anonymous reviewer's word? LOL. Read the book yourself, and form your own opinion. You'll be surprised how well this can work. Might be easier to try one of Bartov's shorter, more poignant works - German Troops and the Barbarisation of Warfare - and then, for the sake of letting bias infect your opinion, find some of the academic reviews of Bartov's work - just to see if that will change your mind a little.

Again, your cherry-picking of material is highly suspect, and typical of your posting style.

How about you have someone burn down youre house, shoot your kids or perhaps rape our wife right in your face before commenting that it is a "primitive" reaction. hatred and desire for vegence is a normal reaction especially if it is inflamed by propoganda and the destruction the Germans have left in their wake to othes families, not only yours.

You are rationalising Russian attrocities with HOW YOU THINK they should have been rationalising what they did. Have you even bothered to look into this a bit more? How many men in the Red ARmy who took part in the invasion of Germany actually came from places that suffered under German occupation? Think about it! How many men in the Red Army were actually aware of what happened to their villages, towns, and families? Do you have any idea? What was the real motivation behind the decision to rape and pillage? Did it perhaps, have anything to to with the stark contrast between Western Europe's plentiful wealth and the general poverty of Russia? Hmmm...I wonder...How much was actually "revenge" inspired? Since you like to quote Beevor now, it's interesting to note that he found the concept of revenge to be one of the LEAST likely factors behind what the Red Army did.

Down the same level? What the Russians did to the Germans is MUCH LESS than what the Germans did tot he Russians. It's like someone murdered your wife and your whole family, tortured you, burned down your house and then after you threw a rock through his window you got arrested.

...and you use the same analogy with Mangalore. Nice work, but it still fails. Yes, the scope of what the Germans did was incomprehensible - but again, it is no way justification for the rape and murder of women and children at the hands of the Red Army.

The crime and punishment are very related and so is the circumstance of the crime. The Red Army's atrocities and rapes are not a surprise to anyone, not even to the Germans. The Fascists new exactly what was coming to them, that is why they were fleeing to the hills in desperation to get to the Western Allies.

So now every refugee who fled the advancing Russians were "fascists"? Every civilian who tried to escape "knew" they had a raping coming to them, because that's what they deserved? Your logic is very almost sick, and shamefully callous.

The rape numbers are estimated between several tens of thousands to 2 million. I think that about 1 million is the most resalistic number.

And why do you think 1 million is "the most realistic number"? How did you arrive at this? What research did you do to determine that 2 million must be way to high? Please let us know.

Considering Beevor estimates that a "high proportion" of at least 15 million women living under Soviet occupation were raped, I'd say your estimate is a little off.

There have also been stats floating around about abortions - in Germany 2 million per year, from 45 to 48. Not to say that all of them were caused by Red Army rapists, but it certainly puts your paltry figure of 1 million in persepctive.

[Mangalore]

Maybe it is important to point out that the main drive to point out the crimes commited against the Germans in the wake of WW2 is not about lumping them together with the victims of German brutality, but to make sure that future combatants don't use the same excuses to justify their atrocisties wether they are the aggressors or excuse it as revenge. It's no excuse which is why imo public opinion in nowadays so easily sways against military operations. And while maybe a bit to sensitive I'm not sure we should complain about the fact that seemingly alot of people do not see any valid excuses in manhandling or degrading another person, people or nation through the force of arms.

The only pity is that it possibly took 60 million dead and a nuclear stalement to create that mindset...

[Kolokotrones]

Maybe it was boosting to your German pride to say 'Swedes, Spaniards and Austrians pillaged our country', but those armies consisted nearly entirely of Germans. Also, most of the deaths was caused by famine and diseases.

I shouldn't even be responding to you, but I am infuriated with your lack of understanding. My German pride? Maybe you missed the part were I said I wasn't German, in fact, I'm American, with no German descent, so your assault on my supposed "German Pride," implying that I'm only supporting this point because I'm "one of them" is completely hollow. They were mostly disease and famine? What, might I ask, do you imagine caused that? Hmmm, let's take a guess, Rapacious armies burning and stealing everything. You can't eat when armies come tearing through and stealing everything edible for miles around. You say mostly Germans? I say no, the majority indeed were Germans, but the French Armies contained mainly French and Swiss, and the core of Spain's armies were Tercios recruited in Castile, a place with an insignificant amount of Germans. And Austria's armies contained many Italians, Slavs and Magyars.

Riding on Russia's back to victory?! What? Poland was invaded by Russia as much as Germany... Poles were infact the biggest victims of this war... Also, what do Poles had to do with taking German land?! It was Stalin's will to strip Germany, and his order was just executed by Soviets

Learn history!

I never denied Poland was wronged. What I meant by "riding to victory on Russia's back" was Poland contributed very little to the defeat of Germany, and yet got more spoils than anyone. Russia beat all the German Armies and Poland reaped the benefits. You should probably make sure of what I mean before you make rash comments on it.

Teutonic Order---> Duchy of Prussia---> Brandenburg-Prussia---> Kingdom of Prussia.

Capechi?!

Yeah.....no. The Teutonic Order was a very instrumental in establishing the Prussian Kingdom. But it is not the predecessor of that Kingdom. It's a holy order of monk Knights charged with defending the faithful and spreading the gospel, and is still around today.

Why do you so desperately use wrong analogy?!

Please explain where my analogy is wrong. Did Prussia create Germany from a host of petty principalities or not? Did the 13 Colonies create the United States by gaining control of the vast landmass it owns now or not? The United States owes it's political and cultural legacy to the 13 colonies, Germany the same for Prussia, though I admit that many German lands contributed to "Germany." However, Prussia contributed the most, and Germany today is the legal successor to the Kingdom of Prussia.

UNIFIED, due to it's military might.
Surprise: German culture was EXPORTED to Prussia, Silesia and Pomerania, not otherwise. Non-prussian states already had german culture.

Indeed, but it takes more than just military might to unify a nation. Prussia could have created Germany in 1848, but it could not defeat Russia, France and Austrian, the only countries opposing German unification. The Princes of the German states also opposed the union, since their own powers would be curtailed, but everyone in Germany looked to Prussia as the standard bearer of Germandom, and it was. Your non-sense statement about German culture being exported to Prussia is irrelevant. Polish culture and language was exported to Poland itself.

They weren't pure militarist. But they indeed were most militaristic state in Europe.

No, they were not. The most militaristic state in Europe was Russia. Prussia had a large army, and was famous for it's ability, but the largest army, and the one supported by the largest percentage of government income was Russia's.

He also had one of the biggest armies in whole Europe, his soldier per civilians ratio was highest in Europe, and he led an expansive, militaristic state.

A small states requirement to expand and to survive. Perhaps you're suggesting that he ask really really nicely to be left alone and given the land he claims? His enemies outnumbered him vastly, he needed men, and this was the way to get it.

I was just pointing out that comparison of 13 colonies to Prussia is pure nonsense.

Of course, since Prussia contributed nothing to the culture and politics of Germany....

So Germans were majority or minority there? And no, they weren't German to the bone. If I would ever use such term on a German teoritorries, I would call such the teoritorries west of Oder.

I meant to put "majority." They were definitely in the majority in these areas.

Naaaah. Look at the map of Eastern Germany. Then look at the city names. Sound Slavic? Well, that's because they were built by Slavs. Same applies to Silesia and Pomerania. To much bigger extent. depends where.

What a fantastic find genius. All the names like "Kaliningrad" and "Szczecin" are either corrupted versions of German names, or they are completely new names. The city of Konigsberg was named after Ottokar II of Bohemia, who donated money to the knights, and it was built by the knights. And then Russia takes it and names it after Mikhail Kalinin, and you're going to tell me that it's not German because it has a slavic name? You're done, just stop.

BS detector detects a threat!
BS detected!
Report:

I'm glad I'm dealing with someone who is so mature....

That 'Grand Duchy of Posen' was purely Polish, and actually before partition it was called 'Wielkopolska' which can be translated as 'Greater Poland'.

Learn history!

That's absurd, it was not purely Polish, I am very well aware of what it was called prior to partition. Please stop saying "Learn History!" as if I'm some uninformed amateur and you are the lord of all knowledge, your view of history is actually very narrow, so just stop right now.

Whatdid you expect from Soviet-set Puppet-goverment (which wasn't even legal government of Poland btw)?! To disagree with Stalin?

Learn history!

So Poland was weak and did not dare defy Stalin? And you agree that Poland consented to this arrangement?

All this teoritorry was seized by Russia from Poland in early 1800s. Learn history!

Technically, all this area was seized from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and that was taken from the Russian Princes of Kievan Rus. So Poland had no stake here, except as the partner of Lithuania. Also, this was absorbed by Russia prior to the 1800's, so it is you who appears to be in need of learning history.

And it's polish population was significant enough to justify it's incorporation. But what it has to do with Prussia?

It was not, Poland wanted to create a buffer between itself and Russia, and the amazingly little resistance offered to the Red Army by these supposedly "Polish" lands is evidence that these people inhabiting the territory were not Polish, and did not wish to defend the Polish Republic. What it has to do with Prussia is that Poland would not have gotten Prussian territory if it did not need compensation for its loss of territroy to the Soviet Union. Did you not understand that simple point?

Yes, they have to. They have to deal with it, just like Poles had.

Again crude revenge logic. Only narrowminded and petty men want to make others suffer just because they suffered. This is the kind of mentality that allows history to be repeated again and again.

I'd like, but remember that first you must rape my women and kill my family, and steal my computer.

Totally missing the point, nevermind.

AFAIK German Government gave them compensation.

The German Government should not have to give them compensation, the German Government did not rob its own people of land. The responsibilty lies on the shoulders of Poland and Russia.

It's not fair, but it's not fair for Poles. Sorry, but that is pathetic if you compare it with all that Poles suffered from both Germans and Russians.

The Poles have suffered alot, I agree. I will say all the Partitions of Poland were unlawful and unjustified. But simply saying "But but, we suffered to" does not make your forced suffering of others justified. I don't think either peoples should have had to endure this, but, incredibly, you think Poland is a victim, and Germany got what it deserved? Poland did some nasty things too, causing the Time of Troubles in Russia, no doubt the Russians wanted vengeance for that, but Poles are completely innocent and victimized.....

I apologise for Russians. They are too hot-headed sometimes, especially when it comes to revenge

As if this is even an argument. You cannot so simply write off atrocious misconduct at the hands of people who were supposedly ridding the world of such conduct.

Gas chambers.

So it's not genocide unless they use Gas Chambers? I guess then Cortes' butchering of literally millions of Aztecs was just a walk in the park then?

If history gave him more time, he would surely exterminate few times more people.

Oh, a fantastic argument, something we cannot prove or disprove. There are no "ifs" in history, what happened is what happened, leave speculation out of this.

Hey, did Napoleon exterminate other nations? No, he didn't!

Indeed he did not, but that was not the point I was addressing. I was saying that Germany was stripped of land beause Russia feared it. Everybody feared France prior to German unification and nobody dispossessed France like they did Germany, even though the French tried multiple times to impose it's will on Europe, and it had been utterly overthrown. Don't try and bring issues that we weren't discussing into play to make your arguments look better. Yes, Hitler tried eradicting nations, no Napoleon did not, we are in agreement here. I was not addressing that point though. Pay attention to what I'm saying and don't take things out of context!

[Carach]

Well I think it was wrong..If Germany wasn't humiliated in WW1 do you think WW2 would have happened?

easy answer to this: if germany wasnt such a warmongerer during and after its creation, we wouldnt of had ww1. (well im a little harsh.. because it did embark on sensible foreign policy for a good 20 years or so after creation.. so was really just that nutty king that caused it all.)

Germany deserved to be 'humiliated'. Take into account the scale of the first world war - the world had never seen such destruction. Not only that but war indemnities were reduced by a third during the intervening peace, and military restrictions were being revised too..

but to the real topic; i dont think anyone really 'stole' land from Germany. land has always been a method of compensation after wars as well as a method of further control over a recent aggressor, and German lands never really had established borders due to the lack of an actual nation existing until (relatively) recent times.

[Ahlerich]

easy answer to this: if germany wasnt such a warmongerer during and after its creation, we wouldnt of had ww1

true. if england wasnt such a warmongerer during and after its creation we wouldnt have had ww1 is also true.

if russia wasnt such a... also true

all world powers wanted to duke it out. all worldpowers got their will. germany lost - thats all.

[Flavius]

I never denied Poland was wronged. What I meant by "riding to victory on Russia's back" was Poland contributed very little to the defeat of Germany, and yet got more spoils than anyone. Russia beat all the German Armies and Poland reaped the benefits. You should probably make sure of what I mean before you make rash comments on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_...o_World_War_II

Over 450,000 Polish soldiers serving in the armed forces of other nations. If I'm not mistaken, Poland had the fourth largest military presence in the allied forces. The war resuted in the deaths of 5,600,000 Poles, the fourth largest death toll in the war, third if you discount China. It is you who should not make rash statements.

So Poland was weak and did not dare defy Stalin? And you agree that Poland consented to this arrangement?

How can you defy a nation that has a military force larger than any in the world and the support of the Western Allies when your nation doesn't even technically exist? It's like saying that by having your legs chopped, you are consenting to lie down.

The Poles have suffered alot, I agree. I will say all the Partitions of Poland were unlawful and unjustified. But simply saying "But but, we suffered to" does not make your forced suffering of others justified. I don't think either peoples should have had to endure this, but, incredibly, you think Poland is a victim, and Germany got what it deserved? Poland did some nasty things too, causing the Time of Troubles in Russia, no doubt the Russians wanted vengeance for that, but Poles are completely innocent and victimized.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Po..._.28to_1918.29

Poles have been the victims for far too long and whatever they did to the Germans is insignificant to what has been done to them. Think of it as karma acting through people. Besides, you think they wanted to be resettled to the foreign lands of Germany? Think they were happy having to give up their ancestral homes in Western Poland?

[Phunkracy]

[quote=Emperor Charles V;4569915]I shouldn't even be responding to you, but I am infuriated with your lack of understanding. My German pride? Maybe you missed the part were I said I wasn't German, in fact, I'm American, with no German descent, so your assault on my supposed "German Pride," implying that I'm only supporting this point because I'm "one of them" is completely hollow. They were mostly disease and famine? What, might I ask, do you imagine caused that? Hmmm, let's take a guess, Rapacious armies burning and stealing everything. You can't eat when armies come tearing through and stealing everything edible for miles around. You say mostly Germans? I say no, the majority indeed were Germans, but the French Armies contained mainly French and Swiss, and the core of Spain's armies were Tercios recruited in Castile, a place with an insignificant amount of Germans. And Austria's armies contained many Italians, Slavs and Magyars.

I never denied Poland was wronged. What I meant by "riding to victory on Russia's back" was Poland contributed very little to the defeat of Germany, and yet got more spoils than anyone. Russia beat all the German Armies and Poland reaped the benefits. You should probably make sure of what I mean before you make rash comments on it.

You want me not to treat you like an ignorant, and at the same time you are showing your ignorance on a massive scale. How dare you say that it contributed very little, while it were Poles who were 4th most numerous Allied soldiers, just after Brits, Americans and Russians. While Poles fought ON EVERY FRONT, moreover, inflicted many casualties on Germans, significantly aided Brits in Battle of Britain, supporting it with their best pilots, broken the Enigma, infiltrated German V-2 and V-1 facilities and plans, etc etc, too much for one post. And what spoils, may I ask you, humble ignorant?

Yeah.....no. The Teutonic Order was a very instrumental in establishing the Prussian Kingdom. But it is not the predecessor of that Kingdom. It's a holy order of monk Knights charged with defending the faithful and spreading the gospel, and is still around today.

Those holy monks created Duchy of Prussia.

Please explain where my analogy is wrong. Did Prussia create Germany from a host of petty principalities or not?

No, it unified Germany. Not created. Creation=/=Unification!

Did the 13 Colonies create the United States by gaining control of the vast landmass it owns now or not? The United States owes it's political and cultural legacy to the 13 colonies, Germany the same for Prussia,

Once agian, this compraison is wrong. If 13 collonies eventually conquered Britain and called it 'USA', then it would be just like that.

Your non-sense statement about German culture being exported to Prussia is irrelevant. Polish culture and language was exported to Poland itself.

Excuse me? Are you aware of fact that when Duchy of Prussia was established, German culture existed for good few hundred years?! So what is your point that German culture originates from Prussia, while it simply does not?!

No, they were not. The most militaristic state in Europe was Russia. Prussia had a large army, and was famous for it's ability, but the largest army, and the one supported by the largest percentage of government income was Russia's.

Prussia had unusually big army for such a small state. Also, it's France which had biggest army, not Russia. Also, both Russia and France had very big population, which explains the size of their armies. But Prussia had not. And Russia was relatively poorer, so it had to spend more cash too keep the army on good level.

A small states requirement to expand and to survive. Perhaps you're suggesting that he ask really really nicely to be left alone and given the land he claims? His enemies outnumbered him vastly, he needed men, and this was the way to get it.

Last time I checked, it was Prussia who attacked Austria, and Friedrich who led hazardous, expansive policies which nearly led him to defeat.

Of course, since Prussia contributed nothing to the culture and politics of Germany....

Since Prussia is the state from which originates German culture...

What a fantastic find genius. All the names like "Kaliningrad" and "Szczecin" are either corrupted versions of German names, or they are completely new names. The city of Konigsberg was named after Ottokar II of Bohemia, who donated money to the knights, and it was built by the knights. And then Russia takes it and names it after Mikhail Kalinin, and you're going to tell me that it's not German because it has a slavic name? You're done, just stop.

You, sir, just have failed. You're done, just stop, because I can't stop laughing.

First of all, I live in Szczecin. And 'Stetin' is just corrupted version of Slavic 'Szczecin'. Berlin also is Slavic. Same about Breslau, which was Vroclav Also, I wasn't pointing out that Prussia had Slav-build cities, because it had not. Because:
-it was Prussian
-it's TO which build cities and castles.
And I don't care about what Russians called their newly gained cities. They were never in possesion of Prussia, so they could hardly name them after German names, could they?!

I'm glad I'm dealing with someone who is so mature....

I'm glad I'm dealing with someone with so overhelming knowledge....


I just couldn't be serious all the way with a guy who unwittingly provides me with so many jokes.

That's absurd, it was not purely Polish, I am very well aware of what it was called prior to partition. Please stop saying "Learn History!" as if I'm some uninformed amateur and you are the lord of all knowledge, your view of history is actually very narrow, so just stop right now.

Just stop? Buahaha. It's you who was saying essentialy that "Poland has significant Polish population", Captain Obvious. Also, you seem like an amateur, and your knowledge about the subject is amateur.

So Poland was weak and did not dare defy Stalin? And you agree that Poland consented to this arrangement?

It was weak. After both Russian and German occupation, it was a ruined country.

Once again you show your ignorance about the subject: Poland had two goverments that time:
-Polish goverment-in-exile, the legal one, set in London
-Soviet set regime, in Poland

The second one obviously couldn't resist Stalin, and thus regime agreed to the change of teoritorries.

Technically, all this area was seized from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania,

Which teoritorry?

and that was taken from the Russian Princes of Kievan Rus.

If speaking about Ukraine, everything was incorporated due to diplomatic actions.

So Poland had no stake here, except as the partner of Lithuania.

It has, very large Polish population in Wilno in Litwa and in Lwow, Galicia.

Also, this was absorbed by Russia prior to the 1800's, so it is you who appears to be in need of learning history.

Yes, absorbed. Taken by force, in other words. So does this justify Russian pretensions to that land?!

It was not, Poland wanted to create a buffer between itself and Russia,

and the amazingly little resistance offered to the Red Army by these supposedly "Polish" lands is evidence that these people inhabiting the territory were not Polish, and did not wish to defend the Polish Republic.

Excuse me, but what did you know about subject? From which sources you judge that resistance was little? Because it wasn't and the secret of so fast Russian progress is their military superiority, large numbers, Poland's lack of any natural borders and great percentage of cavalry in Russian army. But it seems that I'm ignorant to my history.

What it has to do with Prussia is that Poland would not have gotten Prussian territory if it did not need compensation for its loss of territroy to the Soviet Union. Did you not understand that simple point?

I do understand and it's wrong.

If Germany lost Konigsberg, Breslau and Stettin, why Polsih loss of Lwow, Wilno and Minsk should be considered as smaller loss?! You use double-standards for Poland and Germany.

Again crude revenge logic. Only narrowminded and petty men want to make others suffer just because they suffered. This is the kind of mentality that allows history to be repeated again and again.

No, it's your logic which is fail. Your use of double-standards for Poland and Germany, ignorance on the subject and finally, not considering Stalin's will and Polish suffering due to German agression, which has never been rewarded.

Totally missing the point, nevermind.

Totally missing? Hey, you actually say "let's act like nothing really happened from German side, Poles should lose it's Eastern teorittorry, loss it's sovereignity, while Germany should stay with unchanged borders. Oh those nasty Poles, how dare they say that Germans should blame themselves, not Poland?!"

The German Government should not have to give them compensation, the German Government did not rob its own people of land. The responsibilty lies on the shoulders of Poland and Russia.

No, it does not, as whole border change was direct consequence of German government actions. And thus it's not Polish Government which holds the responsibility, but German.




The Poles have suffered alot, I agree. I will say all the Partitions of Poland were unlawful and unjustified. But simply saying "But but, we suffered to" does not make your forced suffering of others justified.

I don't think either peoples should have had to endure this, but, incredibly, you think Poland is a victim, and Germany got what it deserved?

Considering how Germany performed during WWII, it deserved much more. It could be turned into desert if Russians followed "eye for eye' rule.
But there's such thing as humanitarism. And the fact that not all of Germany was guilty of horrible crimes of it's sons and leaders.

Poland did some nasty things too, causing the Time of Troubles in Russia,

Hey, that was some 400 years ago! Wow, Russian memory must be very good indeed.

no doubt the Russians wanted vengeance for that,

And they got in 1640s.

but Poles are completely innocent and victimized.....

Poles weren't agressors, that's for sure.

As if this is even an argument. You cannot so simply write off atrocious misconduct at the hands of people who were supposedly ridding the world of such conduct.

Obvious sarcasm is obvious.

So it's not genocide unless they use Gas Chambers? I guess then Cortes' butchering of literally millions of Aztecs was just a walk in the park then?

Oooh, you just changed topic from 'worst barbarity' to 'biggest genocide'...

You must be pretty ignorant to actually blame Cortes for genocide. Cortes wasn't an architect of genocide, he was just conqueror of Mexico. And he certainly isn't responsible for genocide, point out WHERE he butchered those milions. It makes as much sense as blaming one concrete person for genocide of North American indians.

Diseases, as much as other Spainiards caused much, much more deaths.

Also, I find Gas chambers worst barbarity in history. For the first time in history, people were treated like... ...things. On industrial scale. Like material which had to be utilised. Vision of hell, realised.

Oh, a fantastic argument, something we cannot prove or disprove. There are no "ifs" in history, what happened is what happened, leave speculation out of this.

Considering how effective he was in genocide in so short timespan, we can assume that we can prove that.

Unless yu want to defend hitler, of course.

Indeed he did not, but that was not the point I was addressing. I was saying that Germany was stripped of land beause Russia feared it. Everybody feared France prior to German unification and nobody dispossessed France like they did Germany, even though the French tried multiple times to impose it's will on Europe, and it had been utterly overthrown. Don't try and bring issues that we weren't discussing into play to make your arguments look better. Yes, Hitler tried eradicting nations, no Napoleon did not, we are in agreement here. I was not addressing that point though. Pay attention to what I'm saying and don't take things out of context!

Sir, that's exactly what you're doing. And why do I have to be worse in that aspect?

[Kolokotrones]

I'm done. You're level of arrogance appalls me. If you wish to believe such bigoted non-sense, by all means go ahead. I have nothing else to say to you. I try and try to have a civil debate with you and you constantly attempt to shout me down and call me "ignorant" and "amateur." You sir are nothing, absolutely nothing, have you written any books on this subject? If not, you have absolutely no right to take that tone with me. I do not spend all my free time researching so some nobody on the internet, who knows nothing about me, can call me ignorant. Take your arguments and your arrogance somewhere else, I have no further use for them.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

I will freely admit that the matter of "freedom for Silesia" (and etc) is currently only held by organization of at best dubious political nature. And last time I checked the Czechs also don't want to pay any idemnities for the Sudety expulsions: they tried giving the Germans full rights under their constitutions pre-1938 but their own different loyalties and the Munich affair showed how far they would go just to turn their coats to Germany! It happened long ago, and if you hate it, then why did you cause the war in the first place?

And on the matter of Genocide, Phunkracy is right. So far, only Hitler has made a systematic attempt towards the extermination of whole peoples in a methodical industrial process (check the Holocaust thread in Political Academy). The killing of natives by disease was not intentional at first, simply because Cortes could not have the means to manipulate biological warfare as a weapon of mass destruction like today. This is why the Holocaust is classed as, by far, the worst genocide ever comitted by decree and intention of a sovereign power and people.

[Kolokotrones]

I will freely admit that the matter of "freedom for Silesia" (and etc) is currently only held by organization of at best dubious political nature. And last time I checked the Czechs also don't want to pay any idemnities for the Sudety expulsions: they tried giving the Germans full rights under their constitutions pre-1938 but their own different loyalties and the Munich affair showed how far they would go just to turn their coats to Germany! It happened long ago, and if you hate it, then why did you cause the war in the first place?

And on the matter of Genocide, Phunkracy is right. So far, only Hitler has made a systematic attempt towards the extermination of whole peoples in a methodical industrial process (check the Holocaust thread in Political Academy). The killing of natives by disease was not intentional at first, simply because Cortes could not have the means to manipulate biological warfare as a weapon of mass destruction like today. This is why the Holocaust is classed as, by far, the worst genocide ever comitted by decree and intention of a sovereign power and people.

I don't understand these compulsive forced evictions of people because of nationality. And for the last time, I am NOT German! So that bit about "why did you start the war." I started nothing, my Grandparents fought against Germany, so don't point that finger at me.

As for genocide, it matters very little if it was intentional, or what methods were used. People died, and more people died because of Hernan Cortes and his greedy Spaniards than because of Hitler and his diabolical minions. I will concede that the intentional and industrial liquidation of millions of people is ghastly and horrifying, and in terms of brutality is by far the most cruel episode in Human History. I concede that immediately, but do all the Germans have to pay for it forever by losing their lands? What of the old German farmers who didn't even like the SS, and the Prussian Junkers, who despised Adolf Hitler? Ironically enough, the Prussians liked Hitler the least, but they got the most punishment. I don't think that Germans, who did not even exist at the time, should be punished by having their country eternally maimed.